February 13, 2016

I'm not live-blogging (nor is John tonight), but I'm watching and very interested in how they will talk about the death of Antonin Scalia.

Please comment. I'll drop in if I can (and if not, will say a few things tomorrow).

ADDED: The first question was about the vacancy left by Justice Scalia, and all of the candidates were called upon to address whether President Obama deserves to have control of the nomination. The moderator, John Dickerson, was heavy-handed enough pushing the idea of Obama's power and duty that the audience resorted to booing. As for the candidates, it was interesting. Each showed something of his personal style in addressing the question:Trump: "If I were President now, I would certainly want to try and nominate a Justice, and I'm sure, frankly, I'm absolutely sure President Obama will try and do it." One powerful man thinking about himself, and identifying with another powerful man. It's a power game, and powerful men must play. And the powerful men in the Senate — "Mitch and the entire group" — must stop Obama. "It's called delay delay delay delay."

Kasich: If he were President, he says, we wouldn't have the divisions that make a Supreme Court nomination such a difficult ordeal. He bemoans the quick descent into politics. The President should think about nominating no one or nominating someone that everyone could agree upon. What a stark contrast to Trump.

Carson: He bemoans "divisiveness" and wants to "create some healing in this land." But we can't get that with Obama. He shouldn't be allowed to have an appointment.

Rubio: He plugs in prepared material: Scalia will go down in history as one of the great Justices, who understood the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning. But, no, Obama should not have an appointment. "It's been over 80 years since a lame duck President has appointed a Supreme Court Justice." This election is important he says, because "Someone on this state will get to choose the balance of the Supreme Court, and it will begin by filling this vacancy that's there now." He assumes the Republican candidate will win, for some reason (or is he just misspeaking?).

Bush: He's asked to address the way Republican Presidents have chosen Justices who've turned out not to be so conservative. Would he have a "litmus test"? Bush sensibly says he wouldn't have a litmus test on particular issues (like the way Bernie Sanders says he will (the nominee must commit to overruling Citizens United)), but he'd want someone with "a proven record." Bush acknowledges that a proven record makes it hard to get the person through the Senate confirmation, but he thinks it's possible to find a person who is "a lover of liberty" and "believes in limited government." Of course, liberal judges can sign on to those abstractions. The difficulty lies at a more particular level where if a conservative President seeks more assurance, the Senate will have its ammunition to defeat the nominee. I'm sure Bush knows that. His task here is to convince voters that he's the man to put in the position of President. Whether he'll be successful in getting real conservatives on the Court (or in anything else) is a matter to struggle over at some later date. Bush says the President has to "fight and fight and fight" for that nomination. He stresses that the President does get his choice: "I'm an Article II guy... We're running for the President of the United States. We want a strong executive, for sure." Okay... but that's kind of making Obama's argument for him? No, he pivots away from that. In return for the power Article II gives the President, the President ought to have to pick a consensus nominee, and "there's no doubt" that Obama won't do that.

Cruz is up next, last, but Dickerson can't hold back from inserting the constitutional opinion he hasn't been able to drag out of anyone yet: "The Constitution says the President shall appoint with advice and consent from the Senate, just to clear that up, so he has the constitutional power." Dickerson sounds very agitated. It's weirdly unmoderator-like. He then invites Ted Cruz to talk about the time line: When should the President exercise this power?

Cruz: Cruz repeats the talking point Rubio already dished up, except that Cruz says it wrong: "We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court Justices in an election year." Dickerson interrupts him with an apt correction: Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in an election year, 1988. Cruz has to scramble: Kennedy was nominated before the election year, in 1987. That's an awkward beginning. Dickerson says, "I just wanted to get the facts straight," and gets some serious booing from the audience. Cruz proceeds to extol Justice Scalia: "He changed the arc of American legal history." But it shows how important this vacancy is: "We're one Justice away" from a ruling that would take away the individual right to bear arms and that would "undermine the religious liberty of millions of Americans." (I note that Justice Scalia wrote the opinion that narrowed the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause.) So: "Who on this stage has the background, the principle, the character, the judgment, and the strength of resolve to nominate and confirm principled constitutionalists to the Court?"

Oso Negro said...No way he is President after shitting on G.W. Bush's effort in Iraq.

A majority of Republicans see the Iraq war as a mistake. Trump, as usual, refuses to ignore the elephant in the room. It is ridiculous that Jeb wants to pretend that his brother's presidency was anything other than a disastrous failure at multiple levels. Trump is a realist, not a partisan.

A majority of Republicans see the Iraq war as a mistake. Trump, as usual, refuses to ignore the elephant in the room.

Much of contemporary American conservatism, in the model of the Buckley-Weekly Standard fold, requires a massive amount of denial.

The Republican Party is in the process of discovering that their "base" is actually, get this, less committed to the ideological purity of the conservative movement than they are. Or maybe discovering that they can't hide this fact or prevent it for much longer.

Althouse says Rubio "assumes the Republican candidate will win, for some reason" and seems surprised. She shouldn't be. When in an election race has a candidate of one party predicted victory by the other party? Some say that "both parties are in disarray", but the Republicans' problem is that they have too many good candidates, and the Democrats' problem is that they don't have any.

AReasonableMan - At the time we went into Iraq, it was a broadly supported effort. It was a mistake for Obama to pull out. I cannot say I enjoyed my son's three deployments with the USMC. Whether it was a mistake or not, those who deployed, and their families, are not going to hold with Trump on this. Mark it down.

Whether it was a mistake or not, those who deployed, and their families, are not going to hold with Trump on this. Mark it down.

They are not the majority of voters in this country, and might not be the majority of even GOP voters. Mark it down. If they cannot have a political opinion on the policy of when or how to deploy, then there is no use in saying whether they appreciated a comment on it or not.

Iraq has become a massively unpopular debacle in the minds of Americans. Republicans cannot run from this fact.

Oso Negro said...At the time we went into Iraq, it was a broadly supported effort. ... I cannot say I enjoyed my son's three deployments with the USMC. Whether it was a mistake or not, those who deployed, and their families, are not going to hold with Trump on this.

For the Republicans to win the presidency again they have to deal with the legacy of Bush (W) with brutal honesty. If they don't, they run the risk of sounding as though they have learnt nothing. Trump understands this, and he beats the crap out of Jeb to show that he is not going to make the same mistakes. It is a good long-term strategy even if it alienates Bush partisans now.

The Republican Party is in the process of discovering that their "base" is actually, get this, less committed to the ideological purity of the conservative movement than they are. Or maybe discovering that they can't hide this fact or prevent it for much longer.

There is a lot if truth in this statement. I think the war for small government has been lost. The Republicans surrendered during Bush I and II.

Very very interesting, and lively debate. Trump hurt himself with his claim that Bush lied to get the U.S. into the war in Iraq, and by attacking the audience for booing him at times, claiming that they are lobbyists. John Dickerson revealed something I think Jeb Bush didn't know - that in 2008 Trump gave an interview in which he said Bush should have been impeached for lying about the war. He did not give adirect answer about whether he still beleived that. They also had an argument abut Russia, or fighting ISIS. Bush rescinded an invitation to Trump.

Carson gets asked to comment last, answers some previous questions, is very hesitant and says maybe a few good things, but very unforcefully. He doesn't sound on top of things.

Some arguments can't be settled by any person watching. Kasich and Bush had an argument over expanding Medicaid and they were talking past each other. Bussuh saying Medicaid expanded, Kasich saying it grew by alittle and saying Ohio's economy aand budget got better. Nobody got into or knows why. Cruz and Rubio were fluent talkers. What you think depends on your knowledge and opinion about what they say.

AReasonableMan said...Oso Negro said...No way he is President after shitting on G.W. Bush's effort in Iraq.

A majority of Republicans see the Iraq war as a mistake. Trump, as usual, refuses to ignore the elephant in the room. It is ridiculous that Jeb wants to pretend that his brother's presidency was anything other than a disastrous failure at multiple levels. Trump is a realist, not a partisan.

Trump said this debate that "the WMD were a lie and they knew it was a lie." Somebody should slap Trump for saying that. He sounds like a columnist for The Nation. There's no one word for Trump; liar, asshole, idiot. No one word suffices.

Trump said this debate that "the WMD were a lie and they knew it was a lie." Somebody should slap Trump for saying that. He sounds like a columnist for The Nation. There's no one word for Trump; liar, asshole, idiot. No one word suffices.

I hope you feel free to die on this sword of pretending that W.'s minions didn't trump up and invest as much faith in wanting to believe the worst-case scenario about their pet project as they wanted to believe. It's an issue of a total incapability for objectivity, or even any interest in it. People get lots of information from lots of sources. Not all of them are as deliberately selective with it as the uniquely selective administration of W., or its defenders today.

Does anyone believe these Republicans really care for the poor? It seems like they have complete investment in the idea that poverty is almost always a type of personal failing, and the worse the level of poverty, the worse the personal failure.

If Scalia was a liberal and a Bush was in the White House he was killed in his sleep. Straight up MSNBC, CNN, whatever media is calling it, they are like chicken parts in mcnuggets, parts is parts.

Everyone knows what Obama wants, the question is whether congress will put on their big people's pants and not allow him to put someone into the court who will seal our fates until Ginsburg dies, could be tomorrow.

A president who rules by executive order shouldn't put people on the court.

Well, I called them a bunch of bums, to start with. But my local RNC representative said that wasn't good enough to run on. So I pronounced them as "parasites of capitalism," and then they said I was doing much better for them. And for me.

At least, this is the thinking that will be allowed to prevail once again as soon as a Democrat isn't in the Oval Office.

Hahaha. So the way that Trump is going to get his 35% tax on the Ford Motor Company is to "cajole" with Congress and make deals.

"Making deals" is the basic reason that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and the Trump/Cruz demographic have been so mad at Congressional Republicans.

RINO is the acronym for "Republican in Name Only." There's never been a Republican in a generation, for whom the term RINO better applies, than Donald Trump. In Trump's case, it applies literally. No other Republican in this race has been a registered Republican for less time and with less reliability, than Trump.

He [Rubio] assumes the Republican candidate will win, for some reason.

He's right, and it's because people are, to quote a famous movie, "mad as Hell and not going to take it anymore." Whether Rubio is the right person to channel that anger into something productive remains to be seen.

Rubio wishes Ronald Reagan were still around. Too bad Republicans were so in favor of the 22nd amendment. They might have gotten 3+ terms out of him like we did the much greater FDR and then they wouldn't stop blaming their failures on his lack of terms in office.

You know, I think Trump is trying to raise Bush's profile to even out the vote alittle bit more. It is hard to figure out some other reaosn for concentrating on Jeb Bush, unless the ads are having an effect. He's attacking Bush and he's attacking Cruz, to a limited degree. Cruz to lower his vote, Bush to raise it maybe. He's ignoring Kasich, Carson and Rubio. Trump seemed to accuse Cruz of being resonsible for a robo call that said he was going to leave the race.

There are acouple of flat out denails and contraictions in this debate. Cruz said Trump was against defunding Planned Parenthood, Trump denies it Cruz said it is on his website.

I was prepared to hold my nose and vote for Tromp if he got the nomination, but I won't vote for anyone who proclaims that "Bush lied us into war". No sane person believes that (insane commenters are invited to self-identify).

They have all been great. The Ds look moribund in comparison. I understand the Ds throwing their lot in with Hillary. They have the world's weirdest political coalition. To keep the coalition intact they have to throw women voters a bone, even if it means losing a very winnable election.

Answer to "Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?". The whole post at the link draws from the primary sources of the mission to explain the law and policy, fact basis of OIF.

Alex, I probably wouldn't have gone off on Trump if he had simply left it at "I opposed the war, and I think time has proven me right." I wouldn't have agreed with Trump, but I wouldn't have bothered to write anything. It's hard to keep up with the Trump Falsehoods and the Trump Idiocies. I don't have the time to keep up with the Trump Disagreements.

Alex, what Trump said was that the intelligence on WMD's was somehow fraudulent and that the Bush Administration knew it.

Now you tell me what evidence there is for that slander. You may be able to find something, if you trip over to The Nation (as I mentioned specifically) or Salon or some other Left Wing Fever Swamp Outlet. That is sort of my point.

Trump's ghastly motormouth has no place in a Republican debate. He can't help it, and he can't turn it off.

It's interesting watching smart people start to rationalize their gut feelings. Reminds me of when Armed Liberal talked himself into supporting Brown over Fiorina. His argument was something along the line: California is run by corrupt people so we need a corrupt politician to deal with them.

Rhythm and Balls said...Does anyone believe these Republicans really care for the poor? It seems like they have complete investment in the idea that poverty is almost always a type of personal failing, and the worse the level of poverty, the worse the personal failure.

Fighting poverty is a losing battle as long as the Left keeps importing the poor.

Napoleon Trump was firing his artillery battery close up. There was no return fire except the audience claque set up by CBS to shout down the Candidates they want to stop.

Poor Bush III was righteously mad at anybody hurting his brother, Daddy and Mommie's feelings. But then he said Daddy and brother did abuse Eminent Domain in Texas for their Baseball Team Stadium wealth. Mommie is gonna be mad!

This business of attacking the George W. Bush presidency in South Carolina; a Bloomberg Politics national poll of Republicans last November put the rating at 77 percent. A Pew poll in May 2015 put the rating at 73 percent. In South Carolina, those numbers would almost certainly be even higher.

It depends what you mean by small - the Federal government as a fraction of GDP hasn't changed significantly for the last 40 years.

And what lots of us mean is the escalating intrusion of government regulations in our state and local governments and our lives.

Unlike the budgetary accounting of direct tax revenues, Washington does not track the total burdens imposed by its expansive rulemaking. An oft-quoted estimate of $1.75 trillion[1] annually represents nearly twice the amount of individual income taxes collected last year.[2]

Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...It's nice that the lack of policy substance can be supplanted by so much invective, attacks and personal insult.Wrong debate, R&B. The Koch bros. haven't been mentioned at all. Or do you think that denying Americans the right to free speech is a serious policy proposal?

Graham just lying through his teeth. Not only didn't other intelligence services believe the WMD nonsense they tried to get the US to reconsider. Undermines his own credibility by effectively endorsing Jeb.

Chuck: Trump said this debate that "the WMD were a lie and they knew it was a lie." Somebody should slap Trump for saying that. He sounds like a columnist for The Nation. There's no one word for Trump; liar, asshole, idiot. No one word suffices.

Rhythm and Balls said... I hope you feel free to die on this sword of pretending that W.'s minions didn't trump up and invest as much faith in wanting to believe the worst-case scenario about their pet project as they wanted to believe.

Which is it? The idea was trumped up or they wanted to believe it?

The truth is nobody disputed it, because the question was if he had the chemicals in 1995, where did they go? It's not marmalade.

And furthernmore, Saddam Hussein was acting like he had something to hide. The doubt they had was whether the chemicals were in a ready-to-use form.

It is an impossible theory that Bush thought that the information about chemocal weapons was wrong because all the U.S. troops were equipped with chemical warfare protection gear.

"It's weirdly unmoderator-like" Why? It's his job. Prog's gonna do what Prog's gonna do. The only mystery is why the GOP keeps putting up with it. I have no illusions about the GOP or "conservative" politicians or for that matter anyone in public life, but getting rid of these Dem operatives at debates seems like a no-brainer.

Now what I think is that Saddam Hussein wanted Bush to believe he had chemical weapons, but in reality he got rid of them, sending some of it to Syria.

He didn't want to actually have them, because then the inspectors might find them. He was looking for a split in the coalition. But he wanted Bush and Rumsfeld - not just Iran like David Kay has it - to believe he had them because he believed that way he could save himself and prevent a war!

How so?

Saddam Hussein knew that if Bush believed he might have chemical weapons he had to start the war by April because otherwise it would be too hot for U.S. soldiers to function wearing chemical weapons protection gear. He also knew that Bush would wait till the last minute. Third, he knew Bush's war plan involved an invasion both from Kuwait and from Turkey.

Saddam Hussein believed that if Bush believed he had chemical weapons, Bush could not start the war later than the beginning of April, and, if he didn't invade, probably wouldn't keep troops there till October after the weather got cooler. He didn't believe WMDs were Bush's real reason for wanting the war. He believed the real reason was that he, Saddam Hussein, was a cruel dictator; that this was maybe unfinished business from 1991; and to get revenege for Saddam Hussein's plot (actually a Saudi sting operation) to kill his father in 1993.

So that if Bush believed he didn't have chemical weapons, he would invade after the beginning of April, but if he believed he did he wouldn't! And he had gotten Bush to believe that he had them. So his thought was that he if could push Bush past that end of march deadline, there would be no invasion.

I think Saddam Hussein's ace in the hole was the Turkish Parliament. The Turkish Parliament pulled the rug out from the United states at the very last moment by withdr=drawing permission. Probably Saddam Hussein bribed some members or had arrangements with them.

He had just destroyed Bush's war plan when it was too late to come up with another one!

Saddam Hussein thought he had prevented an invasion.

But Bush went ahead without Turkey. It turned out Turkey wasn't really needed. It was included more for diplomatic than for military reasons. Maybe also to slightly reduce casualties.

By the way they did find chemical weapons but that was later, They were purchased by the CIA and that was all kept secret, and some U.S. soldeiers weer exposed.

Rubio gave a good response about UN resolutions and Carson gave a good response about how upsetting the applecat is bad but they had finally got things all right in Iraq but then Obama cut and ran.

Wrong debate, R&B. The Koch bros. haven't been mentioned at all. Or do you think that denying Americans the right to free speech is a serious policy proposal?

Ok. You keep worrying about the Cock bros. and the Dems will keep talking about what worries them about THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Democrats win. Thanks.

What are you a serf? Like you need to find some rich American to be more important to you than the rest of society? You're not living off his land and he's not paying you to fight his wars (ok, maybe he might) and he's not taking your bride on your wedding night to given off to the king. But once a serf always a serf, I suppose. You need to go back to the ways of the past, it seems. Such are the ways of conserfatives.

There needs to be an add that Cock Inc. can play for their other rich buddies like Sally Struthers made to feed children in Africa. Sponsor a needy conserfative foot-soldier. For just 70 cents a day, the price of a cup of coffee (in 1980), you, Cock Inc., can keep a guy like Terry invested in your interests.

He will write you a letter on his progress once a month (an indicator of your trickle-down effect on him), and fight battles on your behalf under a pseudonym on Blogger sites.

For just 70 cents a day.

You can keep a framed photo of him on your mantle. Along with the starving children of Africa. Terry appreciates your concern and trickle-down contribution to him as much as those African orphans do.

Now get back to work polluting, gutting safety regulations, and U.S. revenue. And sleep soundly at night knowing that Terry has been well cared for and tucked in to bed to sleep soundly.

This business of attacking the George W. Bush presidency in South Carolina

Trump may be trying to shift votes from Rubio - and even Cruz - to Bush. Get more anti-Trump votes to Bush, who is low in the polls and in danger of dropping out of the race if he gets too little in South Carolina. Rubio doesn't need to be saved.

If Obama had half a brain he would go to the 2 old lefties in the Court and get one of them to step down. The Senate would give him a straight-up communist and think they'd made a good deal. Then, if Hillary wins, they get the 5th commie vote.

It depends what you mean by small - the Federal government as a fraction of GDP hasn't changed significantly for the last 40 years.

The growth of government, as a whole, has grown enormously as a percent of GDP. And since the end of WWII, Federal spending, as a percent of GDP, has grown in a considerably pronounced way more than even the loopiest librul acolyte's claims for global warming. The projection for Federal spending in 2020 up from 2000 is almost a 30% increase of the rise of the percent of GDP.

It definitely sounds fake, but I suspect it is circulating somewhere on the Internet.

A better Stalin quote is "one person's death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic" and he did say that somewhere, but not about himself.

Not clear really if he did say that:

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/21/death-statistic/

This also tries to trace the idea. The 1926 quote about China actually sounds like an echo from Adam Smith

in January 1947 the saying was attributed to Stalin in a syndicated column by Leonard Lyons. In 1958 the New York Times included that statistic quote in passing in a book review.

Goebbels did say that if you repeat a lie long enough it gets to be the truth, but he was not talking about himself - he was talking about the resurrection, and this was before he became Minister of Propaganda.

One way to notice fake quotes: You never get a date and occasion. The original 1947 version does have some occasion but it can't be checked. (Stalin supposedly said that in 1925, no exact date given, in a closed door meeting of commissars when one of them gave a speech about famine in the Ukraine - 1925 is a little bit late for that)

I think I once read of a different occasion, maybe during World War II to the British.

Really, really fake quotes don't even have a person who said them, although that could be because they are misattributed.

Brennan was named to the U.S. Supreme Court through a recess appointment by Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, shortly before the 1956 presidential election. Presidential advisers thought the appointment of a Roman Catholic Democrat from the Northeast would woo critical voters in the upcoming re-election campaign for Eisenhower, a Republican.

Obama could put someone on the court when Congress adjourns sine die, if they do.

Ha ha. Lol. You're the one who's seeking to defend Cock. The person. So I guess you would know.

I will abide by your advice on how to treat the Cock that you seem to know so much and care so much about. David and Charles Cock.

What are they like, as Cocks?

Do they have a nice, tender surrounding to their tumescent interiors?

That would be interesting, sort of like how they surround their evil souls with a lot of warm, fuzzy P.R.

Tell me more about these Cocks that you're so in love with and so invested in. And how did you come to be invested in their cocks, precisely? Weren't there other cocks you could have, er, gone to bat for?

Rhythm and balls wrote:I hope you feel free to die on this sword of pretending that W.'s minions didn't trump up and invest as much faith in wanting to believe the worst-case scenario about their pet project as they wanted to believe

Hey, democrats had the chance to NOT vote to authorize the use of force. But they did. Wonder why that is? Well, go back to clinton and his bellicose language on Iraq. We did pass an iraq liberation act, remember? Wasn't that also believing in a worst case scenario when it came to Iraq? So,why wouldn't bush continue to believe what Clinton outlined earlier, which the UN backed up with multiple resolutions violations and which the CIA called a slam dunk case.The revision of history is coming from you.

Rhythm and balls wrote:Ok. You keep worrying about the Cock bros. and the Dems will keep talking about what worries them about THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Democrats win. Thanks.

what is it with you libs and the Koch brothers? Its as if you think no other money is in politics other than Koch brothers. look to the Soros's contributing to dems and then we'll comment why you enjoy Soros's big monied cock up your ass. Do you do ass to mouth after he butt fucks you with his weiner?

Kasich is the only decent republican and the party hates him because he knows how to get shit done with the democrats. Trump is starting to act like a poison pill democratic operative, goading everyone except Kasich to act like a child. He's helping Bernie more than Hitlery.

Rhythm and blues wrote:Oh, I know. Soros. He's doing so much bad to this country. I'm sure you can list a litany of all the things he's done to America as can be done for the Cocks.

He contributes money to the campaigns and issue he values, just like the Koch brothers do. If your issue is that you don't like the Koch brothers issues, well tough shit. I thought your issue was that you don't like money in politics. If you enjoy money fine, just not when its from your opponents wallets, then your opinion is valueless. It would be like arguing that you hate chocolate but like vanilla. Well I like vanilla and hate chocolate. Who cares in either case?We got it. You support the left tard billionaire.

R&B: Both establishment repugs and dems are owned by Wall Street, Generaldynamicslockheedmartinboeingraytheonnorthrupgrumman and Super Offshore Mega-Corps. The dems just fake it better while the repugs have no shame because their toofless base love their overlords and hate minorities and weirdos.

now realize why Cock Inc. is more important to Terry than are the American people.The Koch Bros. are American people.Hating the Koch bros. isn't much of a policy, R&B. There is nothing like this calling out of private citizens on the right. Soros is a currency speculator, not a problem for you guys, hedge fund speculators like Thiel, no problem, his money is okay, but the Koch brothers? Who actually produce a product that keeps our economy humming? Can't have them spending money on politics, why it's a sign of how broken our system is!

Soros, is a puppet master involved in shadow regimes in foreign countries. He's so evil he's like the emperor in star wars. http://www.mintpressnews.com/leaked-george-soros-puppet-master-behind-ukrainian-regime/206574/

Didn't say they weren't. But they're not the only ones, even though you think their influence should make our government respond as if they were.

Hating the Koch bros. isn't much of a policy, R&B.

Hating graft is. But where would conservatives be if they had a philosophy other than the embrace of corruption?

There is nothing like this calling out of private citizens on the right.

Soros. Lol.

Soros is...

Bang! There you go.

...a currency speculator, not a problem for you guys,

Currency only has the value that countries are able to give it in reality.

I don't know much about the guy, other than how he bets on other countries' currencies. I didn't realize other countries had sacrosanct currency valuation schemes.

People bet all the time on lots of things. There are now markets for crowdsourcing speculation over election results, I hear. Guy named John Stossel is big time into this. Who cares? I care about gambling as much as I do whoring. It's a vice (if anything) - not a policy blunder.

..hedge fund speculators like Thiel, no problem, his money is okay, but the Koch brothers?

I'm not opposed to better regulating hedge fund managers, either. But I don't know which of them are running cabals like ALEC designed to have no other purpose than as a one-man or two-man ringing circus for rewriting nearly every one of the laws on the books simply to suit their own narrow agenda.

Yeah. And one party has a chance of even having any candidates with the balls to break it and change it. The other one just capitulates and says, "Vote for rich guy! That's the only way we know he can't be bought!"

This is the system the Republicans want, and their contributors are for almost singularly narrow interests for a very few of the very privileged already. People who don't need any changes from government to accommodate them.

Go contribute to Koch-Cock directly and with your own funds if you think their political needs are so much more important than yours or mine or anyone else's. Stop letting them re-write our laws for us. You have sold out the country. No wonder people don't trust you to defend it.

Original Mike said... Didn't get to watch the debate. Did Trump really blame 9/11 on George Bush?

The exchange went something like this:

Trump was asked about his known opposition to the Iraq war. Trump was tweaking Jeb. Jeb responded that "at least GWB kept us safe." To which Trump retorted that 9/11 happened on GWB's watch. Someone else (Cruz?, Rubio?) translated this to a GWB did not cause 9/11 -- it was Clinton.

The best part of the debate was when Rubio accused Cruz of not speaking Spanish and Cruz responded to Rubio in Spanish Everyone seems to have missed that

As this Comments thread veers off into the weeds, just note the commonality of tone, between the left wing netroots and the Trump fans. I read them and I think I'd need a scorecard to figure out who was for Bernie Sanders and who was for Trump. Maybe there's not much difference for them.

@R&B: Even Soros' next of kin have admitted "we don't know what went wrong with George." And don't try excuse him by referencing his early childhood unless you're willing to consider Ed Teller as well.

Come on R&B -- admit that Soros is as nefarious as the Kochs. You're looking ridiculous on this on an otherwise reasonable comment binge.

Ridiculous is refusing to separate personalities from a policy discussion. I don't care about Soros and everyone here says they don't care about Koch. Or his cock. But at the end of the day I can say what legislation he's writing (Koch-cock) that I oppose and that I know is corrupting and only for his own interest. No one here bothers to do that for Soros. They really do think it's about choosing which rich prick to cheerlead and bashing the other one. I could give a fuck. I'm talking about the action and activity that's destructive. You guys can pretend it's about choosing which dude to be loyal to. I could give a fuck about them - either one of them. That's what you cocksuckers don't get.

Aaron Goldstein blogs for The American Spectator. Here's his take on Trump's debate performance. I could not have written it any better:

Donald Trump - This was his most buffoonish performance to date. When John Dickerson reminded the audience that Trump called for former President George W. Bush to be impeached, Trump blamed former President George W. Bush for 9/11 and said he lied about WMDs, drawing huge booes. Trump further aggravated the crowd by calling them donors. He also saw fit to bash Lindsey Graham. I guess Trump didn't realize he was in South Carolina. Later in the evening, Trump said that Ted Cruz was the biggest liar on the debate stage. Getting back to Jeb, blaming W for 9/11 and claiming he lied about WMDs is something one would expect from the Bernie Sanders crowd. In all of his denunciations of American foreign policy, Bernie has never claimed Bush lied about WMDs much less blamed him for 9/11. Trump is in Noam Chomsky territory. Do we really want to nominate this guy?

Unfortunately, a lot of people say yes. Although Trump lost on substance in his exchanges with Bush and Cruz, he won on style. If Trump can drown out his opponents, he wins even if he is talking nonsense.

Speaking of nonsense, I found it very interesting when Major Garrett brought up that Trump would prevent a Ford plant from closing and if it did close and relocated outside the U.S. he would impose tariffs. Restricting the movement of capital is what you would expect of Bernie Sanders, not Ronald Reagan. Then again praising Planned Parenthood is what you expect of Hillary Clinton, not Ronald Reagan. Trump said he likes Planned Parenthood except for the abortion. That's like saying he likes ISIS except for the beheadings.

During his closing remarks, Trump told the audience he was working for them. An hour earlier he was calling them donors and insulting them. You would think Trump would pay a price for insulting his audiences and insulting the voters. But as Trump says, he could shoot people on Fifth Avenue and not lose support. This was the case in New Hampshire and it might be the case in South Carolina if the anti-Trump vote is split.

I've mentioned ALEC at least a few times already, walter - and that's about as substantive an issue as they come. Controlling state and national legislatures. But hey - if it's all the cock-talk that's distracting to you then maybe you should ask Dave and Chuck to change the name of their legislative exchange council to something that rhymes with a more phallic word.

More seriously: can Obama nominate himself? I can't think of any constitutional reason that he can't, but I haven't read that part of the USC in detail for quite a while. (OK, just read it, it's short and still see no constitutional reason he couldn't.)

Article III (unlike I and II) doesn't set a minimum age, nor does it set any citizenship requirements. Is there a constitutional bar against the nomination of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge?

Can the President make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court? Again, I can't think of a legal reason he can't. Scotusblog actually does answer the question in the affirmative.

What if... just before an August pro forma session to prevent recess appointments, the chair has a heart attack. How many Senators usually show up for one of these sessions?

"Didn't say they weren't. But they're not the only ones, even though you think their influence should make our government respond as if they were."Now you are being ridiculous. Americans, including rich Americans, get to influence politics -- but only if they agree with you? The Koch Bros. politics are well within the mainstream of American politics. They speak for millions who can't, or are afraid to speak out. The Koch brother and all their money have less ability to affect the lives of ordinary Americans than some unelected, unaccountable, mid-level bureaucrat in DC.

Now you are being ridiculous. Americans, including rich Americans, get to influence politics -- but only if they agree with you?

I'd say if they agree with the people then they can retain their unique privilege. Since having the money and influence that they do doesn't seem to be an equal right shared by everyone regardless of who they are in this country.

The Koch Bros. politics are well within the mainstream of American politics.

Total bullshit. Their pro-polution and anti-regulation agendas are not popular. And for a real doozy, check out the popular uprising against their effort to re-segregate North Carolina schools. Typical anti-democratic and nasty stuff for them.

They speak for millions who can't, or are afraid to speak out.

What utter fucking nonsense. They speak for themselves and a very few who share their parochial financial concerns - to the exclusion of all else. You are delusional to pretend otherwise.

The Koch brother and all their money have less ability to affect the lives of ordinary Americans than some unelected, unaccountable, mid-level bureaucrat in DC.

It's too bad that such a gullible propagandist as you isn't a more talented and prodigious writer. It would benefit you handsomely.

This comment thread shows how the political fault lines that divide Americans are widening. It seems the time for discussion and compromise is gone, that our differences can be settled only by war to the knife. Some of you will not survive it. Those who do will be badly hurt. When it is over the country will terribly damaged and it will stay damaged for a very long time. There will be no real victors and all will be embittered by the struggle and dissatisfied with the outcome.

AReasonableMan said...Graham just lying through his teeth. Not only didn't other intelligence services believe the WMD nonsense they tried to get the US to reconsider.

--Which services? When?

From Wikipedia: Curveball (informant)

"...Despite warnings from the German Federal Intelligence Service and the British Secret Intelligence Service questioning the authenticity of the claims, the US Government and British government utilized them to build a rationale for military action in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including in the 2003 State of the Union address, where President Bush said "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs", and Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council, which contained a computer generated image of a mobile biological weapons laboratory.[2][5] They were later found to be mobile milk pasteurization and hydrogen generation trail."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

I have no use for Trump, but he is correct in saying that GW Bush failed to keep America safe by ignoring the CIA's Al Qaeda warnings of a domestic attack:

The Deafness Before the Storm

"...And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track."

Nineteen Eighty-Four is a difficult book to read. It is a tragedy. There is no happy ending for anyone. Not even the members of the oligarchy called "Big Brother" are happy. But it is an excellent description of the ways and means of totalitarianism. Particularly with Winston Smith's conversations with the interrogator O'Brien, Orwell -- who saw totalitarianism close up -- shows us how inhuman and utterly bankrupt Big Brother is. Nothing matters but power. There is no other goal. Big Brother doesn't want to win the war with East Asia. Big Brother doesn't want to make the world a better place. Big Brother exists solely to exercise the power of Big Brother. Like Sauron in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, the goal of Big Brother is to see everything in the world, and see nothing that was not an exercise of his will. Power is not power, O'Brien tells Smith, unless it is arbitrary.So it is with the American Left. From the absurdity of SSM to the fantasy of global warming, the only goal of the American Left is to make you behave differently than you would choose to behave if you were free. That is what is behind the claim of leftists (like Obama) that they aren't ideologues, and they are only interested in what works. The only ideology they have is that they get to make the decisions, not you. The details of the decisions don't matter.

Vaclev Havel:“[Communism] offers a ready answer to any question whatsoever; it can scarcely be accepted only in part, and accepting it has profound implications for human life. In an era when metaphysical and existential certainties are in a state of crisis, when people are being uprooted and alienated and are losing their sense of what this world means, this ideology inevitably has a certain hypnotic charm. To wandering humankind it offers an immediate available home: all one has to do is accept it, and suddenly everything becomes clear once more, life take on new meaning, and all mysteries, unanswered questions, anxiety, and loneliness vanish. Of course, one pays dearly for this low rent home: the price is abdication of one’s own reason, conscience, and responsibility, for an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignment of reason and conscience to a higher authority. The principle here is that the center of power is identical with the center of truth.”

I don't know a lot about Epstein's views on constitutional interpretation--I read his book on property rights years ago--but I doubt he's an originalist (or textualist) like Scalia. His legal analysis is driven in large part by ideological commitments--just different commitments to those of Breyer, Kagan, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor. The same for Posner.

Liberals appear poised like a car chasing dog who finally catches the car. What will it do now? With a looming communist/societal transformation who will populate America's military to fight for our existence? I can't imagine the traditional folks who fought for America will be interested in laying down their lives for the bureaucratic-ruled, socially leveled America.

Hoyden wrote:With a looming communist/societal transformation who will populate America's military to fight for our existence?They don't care, Hoyden. The Great American Liberal Project is to reform America. Their energies are focused inwards, they recognize no foreign threat. When Obama talks about taking in refugees from the ME, he talks about what it means to us, not what it means to them. It is important to him that they come here, not some other western nation where they would presumably be just as safe.It's one of the few remaining real differences between the GOP and the Democrats, these days. Republicans talk about how their foreign policy will change the way other countries or external terror groups act. Democrats talk about how their foreign policy will change the way that we think about ourselves.

Saying "it's about values" while calling those who disagree with you "cocksuckers": why 99% of us think R&B is a liar, a fool, and (of course) a creep, all wrapped up in one nasty package. Many of us also suspect he is paid to come here and wreck the comment section.

Except for his citizenship status, I have always been a big Cruz fan as he seems most like a liberal. He lost me last night. He showed that he has not even the most basic understanding of economics, finance or accounting.

I assume that by write off, he means depreciate but is too much of a pussycat to say it. Business write off investments because they depreciate in value. A new stamping press may have a useful life of 10 years after which its value may be zero. The business gets to deduct 10% of its investment each year.

Cruz, by making this comparison, is saying that children depreciate in value each year until they are worth nothing.

That may be the way some parents view their children but most of us feel quite differently. Our children do not depreciate in value, they appreciate in value. Mostly non-monetary but appreciation nonetheless.

From everything I've seen Cruz loves his children and seems to be a good father. That makes it even more horrifying for him to say this.

Trump, who understands about writing off depreciation, should have called him on it.

I suspect that Carson, having run a medical practice that likely had depreciable assets probably knows about this too. He should have called him on it.

"I'd say if they agree with the people then they can retain their unique privilege."Freedom of speech is the right of an American, not a privilege granted by you or anyone else.

No one's taking away that billionaire's right, you paranoid conserfative. He can say all he wants. Comment on Blogger, give a press interview. Look how free it is! I'm doing it right now and it's costing me nothing! Who's taking that away from him?

What you want is to give him the privilege to allow his speech to be louder than others, more pervasive, to drown out other voices through unequal advertising money. So go ahead and propose giving as much money and advertising resources to others and then I'll believe your pretension to favoring equal free speech rights for all.

Fuck you, fascist.

Lol! YOU'RE the one who wants to tie corporate and financial power to the state, you retarded dildo of a conserfative.

Senator Rubio, you have the highest tax rate of anyone up on the stagein terms of the top tax rates, 35 percent. Some economists say, "Itwould limit its potential to boost economic growth." You do that so thatyou will have more revenue to pay for a tripling of the Child TaxCredit.

Normally, it's liberals who like to use the tax code to insert socialpolicy. Why should conservatives who want to tax adopt the other side'sapproach?

RUBIO: Well, because I'm influencing social policy - this is theirmoney. This is the money of parents. You don't earn the tax creditunless you're working. That's your money, it doesn't belong togovernment.

Here's what I don't understand. If a business takes their money and theyinvest in the piece of the equipment, they get to write off their taxes.But if a parent takes money that they have earned to work and invests intheir children, they don't? This makes no sense.

Parenting is the most important job any of us will ever have. Familyformation is the most important thing in society. So what my tax plandoes, is it does create, especially for working families, an additionalChild Tax Credit. So that parents who are working get to keep more oftheir own money, not the government's money, to invest in their childrento go to school, to go to a private school, to buy a new backpack.

Let me tell you, if you're a parent that's struggling, then you knowthat $50 a month is the difference between a new pair of shoes thismonth or not getting a new pair of shoes for your kids. I'm going tohave a tax plan that is pro-family, because the family is the mostimportant institution in society. You cannot have a strong countrywithout strong families.

Graham just lying through his teeth. Not only didn't other intelligence services believe the WMD nonsense they tried to get the US to reconsider.

--Which services? When?

From Wikipedia: Curveball (informant)

Curveball was a source for a different issue. He claimed that Iraq had some mobile biological weapons laboratories. Not just a biological weapons research laboraory, but they kept them in trucks.

The United States government even thought they had identified the trucks, or maybe this giy actually knew about the trucks (which were actually something else entirely - either mobile milk pasteurization or hydrogen generation trailers. But Saddam Hussein was not preparing to keep his precious supply of biological material safe from bombing by putting them in refrigerated trucks.)

Even according to Curveball, that was only a research program, and most people anyway believed that Saddam Hussein had, or had had, a research program into biological weapons anyway - but that he got interested in smallpox too late. He was said to be interested in anthrax.

Nobody thought much had come of it.

What we usually are talking about when we say WMDs were thought to be theer and not found are chemical weapons, not biological or nuclear weapons, although they are all called WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and sometimes NBC - Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons.

I have no use for Trump, but he is correct in saying that GW Bush failed to keep America safe by ignoring the CIA's Al Qaeda warnings of a domestic attack:

This isn't true, and Trump didn't even say that. The allegation is based upon the CIA telling him in August 2001, taht Osama bin Laden still intends to attack the United States. As Condoleeza Rice said, what are you supposed to do with that. And what they don't tell you, is the CIA told him that because George W. Bush asked:

He was given warnings about a possible attack at the G-7 summit conference in Genoa. George W. Bush asked, what about an attack in the United States? This briefing or paper was their answer, and as some people have pointed out (I think maybe John Podhorets or somebody I'm not sure) the message there was that they had the situation well in hand. It was telling him what they were doing.

Original Mike said... Didn't get to watch the debate. Did Trump really blame 9/11 on George Bush?

chickelit said...

The exchange went something like this:

Trump was asked about his known opposition to the Iraq war. Trump was tweaking Jeb. Jeb responded that "at least GWB kept us safe." To which Trump retorted that 9/11 happened on GWB's watch. Someone else (Cruz?, Rubio?) translated this to a GWB did not cause 9/11 -- it was Clinton.

Rubio. What is this here, that people can't tell the difference between Cruz and Rubio?

TRUMP: (repeating this now when Rubio is tallking) How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center - the World - excuse me. I lost hundreds of friends. The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush. He kept us safe? That is not safe. That is not safe, Marco. That is not safe.

RUBIO: The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn't killOsama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him.